Crisis in UK, Can Tories Save Liz Truss?

[Armael]

Honestly this is getting tedious. You can only be the PM if the party or parties with the largest amount of seats chooses you to be

He's resigning as conservative leader, not from the party.
Traditionally the PM fills the role of conservative leader, although it's a convention and not a requirement.

[Pann]

You're right, this is getting tedious as you constantly throw baseless hypotheticals. So let me simplify it for you.

A Prime Minister needs the majority backing of the house to enter office, and then govern. That's it. If a Prime Minister loses the confidence of their party they are expected, but not mandated, to resign. The reason for this is because they cannot pass law in Parliament and would be defeated.

However, nothing stops them utilising their power to request a dissolution of Parliament and a general election, because even without a party, they are still Prime Minister.

The Fixed Term Parliaments act no longer exists, a Prime Minister needs no backing other than the head of state. Labour or anyone else cannot object, it is a privilege of the office of the First Minister of the Treasury.

I cited the example where that happened, you cited a bunch of maybes that have no legal basis.

He won't do it, I don't personally think he's that stupid or delusional. However, if he had chosen to, there isn't really much anyone can do about it unless you happen to be Her Majesty.

Hang on, so you think that a PM who has lost the confidence of their party can just carry on regardless? And the only problem is that they might not be able to pass laws?

The Prime Minister is the head of the government. He cannot be head of the government if the party elected to government kicks him out. This is not complicated.

They can request dissolution however as I have pointed out to you Johnson has already had a court rule that his last prorogation was unlawful. Do you think that a court would find a PM who is in the process of being removed as leader proroguing parliament has acted lawfully? Or you think they might just think he is being a little naughty again?

The High Court has already ruled that prorogation is unlawful "if it has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature". IANAL but I somehow think that Johnson trying to call election to stop his removal might, just might, prevent Parliament from carrying out its constitutional functions and I think that the sole purpose of calling such an election would be to frustrate Parliament and his party from carrying out their functions. I also think that it would be hard to convince anyone that not wanting to give up being PM was a justifiable reason for doing so.

You didn't cite an example - they are not comparable.

[The Stormbringer]

What makes you think you have the right to tell someone from a minority that they don't count because of their politics?!

Your post was racist and your further posts point to this not being accidental!

If I'm understanding Valkyrst, it's not that the person he's referring to isn't a member of a minority, but that they don't represent minorities due to their policies. I think?

[Pann]

Lol. Okay, mate. Saying he's not a diverse candidate because of his policies isn't racist.

'Look guys, we're putting up a person of colour with hyper conservative views! But you should vote for him because he's brown!'

THAT is racist, because the Tories then think that just because he's brown, I (as a brown person) should ignore his policies and vote for him.

I don't relate to Rishi Sunak at all. He's economically an elite, he's socially an elite. Hope this clears it up.

It is when you bring his skin colour into it.

No-one is saying that you should vote for him because he is brown - what a ridiculous statement!

Why do you think he is in the position because of his skin colour and not his ability?

Seriously stop digging.

[Breccia]

Man, I need to read the last few days in this thread to see what's going on.

[Shadowferal]

BoJo seems to have been Bozo all along.

[Northern Goblin]

Hang on, so you think that a PM who has lost the confidence of their party can just carry on regardless? And the only problem is that they might not be able to pass laws?

It's not the only problem, but you needed it simplifying.

Once appointed by the Queen, that person is PM. If he leaves his party, he's still PM, if he joins another party (see 1931) he's *still* PM. He retains the privilege of being able to call a general election, regardless of the state of his ability to function.

Citing https://www.instituteforgovernment.o...ners/elections you'll see the following line:

"This allowed the prime minister to threaten to call an election if his party, or the Commons as a whole, did not support him in a vote on an important issue (a "matter of confidence")"

So yes, a Prime Minister being threatened with being deposed by his party has absolute authority to call a general election. It's not an advisable course of action, and would certainly cause a lot of problems, but unlike the prorogation attempt to circumvent the will of Parliament with regards to the Brexit deadline during the FTPA era, this is considered a legal course of action as a Prime Minister feels it necessary to do so to reinstate their authority to govern. His argument could be that Government currently no longer properly functions (which it doesn't if everyone kept resigning) and so a fresh government is needed.

That's all the legal basis he would need.

Prorogation is not dissolution, don't conflate the two.

[DingDongKing]

It is when you bring his skin colour into it.

No-one is saying that you should vote for him because he is brown - what a ridiculous statement!

Why do you think he is in the position because of his skin colour and not his ability?

Seriously stop digging.

You're the one who's digging. I've said there's a chance the Tory party will run him as a 'diversity' candidate.

When in fact he isn't that, unless we're going on colour of skin ONLY. From a policy perspective, he's a right wing Tory. Simple.

[Milchshake]

"WhAT IS YOuR Job afTER ThE RevOLUtIoN"
me: Saxophone player ... and community garden manager.

[Edge-]

Larry survives another PM, onto his fourth PM he's served. Just two more PM's and he'll have tied Peter and Peter III who hold the record for most PM's served as Chief Mouser at No. 10

I'm honestly surprised BoJo resigned. I figured he had at least another few months of fighting and lying in him, but I guess he ran out of MP's to make Ministers or something.

Weird that this guy with a long history of being an ethically compromised, dishonest piece of shit who literally only looks out for himself ended up being an ethically compromised, dishonest piece of shit who only looks out for himself. How on earth could anyone have ever seen this coming? Was it his zipline stunt that so dazzled many Brits for so many years? If I do a zipline stunt while waving to little UK flags is that how one gets on the fast-track to being PM of the Conservative party or something?

[Pann]

It's not the only problem, but you needed it simplifying.

Once appointed by the Queen, that person is PM. If he leaves his party, he's still PM, if he joins another party (see 1931) he's *still* PM. He retains the privilege of being able to call a general election, regardless of the state of his ability to function.

Citing https://www.instituteforgovernment.o...ners/elections you'll see the following line:

"This allowed the prime minister to threaten to call an election if his party, or the Commons as a whole, did not support him in a vote on an important issue (a "matter of confidence")"

So yes, a Prime Minister being threatened with being deposed by his party has absolute authority to call a general election. It's not an advisable course of action, and would certainly cause a lot of problems, but unlike the prorogation attempt to circumvent the will of Parliament with regards to the Brexit deadline during the FTPA era, this is considered a legal course of action as a Prime Minister feels it necessary to do so to reinstate their authority to govern. His argument could be that Government currently no longer properly functions (which it doesn't if everyone kept resigning) and so a fresh government is needed.

That's all the legal basis he would need.

Prorogation is not dissolution. Conflating the two

If the PM leaves the party with the largest number of seats he no longer leads the government and is no longer PM by virtue of the fact that he cannot command the confidence of the house because he has just left the party that has the majority in the house. I suppose technically he might be able to convince enough MPs to back him but that seems a tad unlikely seeing as he has just left the largest party - but you never know.

The ruling from 2019 deals with all this!

Prorogation is the period is the formal end of the parliamentary session. You cannot dissolve the government without it.

[Northern Goblin]

If the PM leaves the party with the largest number of seats he no longer leads the government and is no longer PM by virtue of the fact that he cannot command the confidence of the house because he has just left the party that has the majority in the house. I suppose technically he might be able to convince enough MPs to back him but that seems a tad unlikely seeing as he has just left the largest party - but you never know.

The ruling from 2019 deals with all this!

Prorogation is the period is the formal end of the parliamentary session. You cannot dissolve the government without it.

And yet he is still the Prime Minister in terms of executive power and privileges.

The ruling from 2019 was also during the FTPA era, back when Parliament was sovereign on such matters, reverting to the old Royal preogative counters the arguments made in 2019, as the will of Parliament is no longer relevant in closing Parliament.

Not to mention when Parliament is dissolved, as opposed to prorogued, all MPs and the Speaker cease to function in their roles effective immediately, there isn't a Parliament to subvert.

[Fuiking]

lol at 3:07.. .sounds like Dribbles. roflmao

[Pann]

And yet he is still the Prime Minister in terms of executive power and privileges.

The ruling from 2019 was also during the FTPA era, back when Parliament was sovereign on such matters, reverting to the old Royal preogative counters the arguments made in 2019, as the will of Parliament is no longer relevant in closing Parliament.

Not to mention when Parliament is dissolved, as opposed to prorogued, all MPs and the Speaker cease to function in their roles effective immediately, there isn't a Parliament to subvert.

Right so Boris Johnson could cross the house and sit on the Labour benches and still be PM even though the Cons still have a 70+ seat majority?

He can only retain those powers if he retains the confidence of the house and he cannot do so unless he retains the confidence of the majority of MPs.

You can't dissolve Parliament without first proroguing it. And how do you stop the new PM and their government repealing or changing the law to stop the GE in the wash up period?

The ruling in Miller 2 states that the courts have a duty to ensure that the house is able to fulfil their constitutional duty, the repeal of the FTPA and subsequent Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 may mean that this is no longer applicable but that would have to be tested in court.

Johnson technically had the power to call an election but reality there was no way it could succeed.

- - - Updated - - -

Pie doesn't hold back!

[Armael]

He's resigning as conservative leader, not from the party.
Traditionally the PM fills the role of conservative leader, although it's a convention and not a requirement.

@Pann seems you didn't read this, it summed it up with very few words as to not be confusing.

[Pann]

@Pann seems you didn't read this, it summed it up with very few words as to not be confusing.

I did read it.

[Northern Goblin]

Right so Boris Johnson could cross the house and sit on the Labour benches and still be PM even though the Cons still have a 70+ seat majority?

He can only retain those powers if he retains the confidence of the house and he cannot do so unless he retains the confidence of the majority of MPs.

You can't dissolve Parliament without first proroguing it. And how do you stop the new PM and their government repealing or changing the law to stop the GE in the wash up period?

What new PM? You're still the PM in that time period, you've set the time table and you're essentially the solo government. During wrap up, which is a time table he also sets himself, Parliament is still running on the timetable of the government. Even if it's at this point a one man government, they'd have to put in a lot of opposition legislature to get essentially anything done.

It would be a massive constitutional crisis, and there's no guarantee as to how it would play out. The Tories might just wrap up business and seek a new leader for the upcoming elections in that case, giving Johnson the option of retirement or fighting his seat as an independent.

Also yes, a PM can cross the floor, like I told you, it's happened before.

[Pann]

What new PM? You're still the PM in that time period, you've set the time table and you're essentially the solo government. During wrap up, which is a time table he also sets himself, Parliament is still running on the timetable of the government. Even if it's at this point a one man government, they'd have to put in a lot of opposition legislature to get essentially anything done.

It would be a massive constitutional crisis, and there's no guarantee as to how it would play out. The Tories might just wrap up business and seek a new leader for the upcoming elections in that case, giving Johnson the option of retirement or fighting his seat as an independent.

Also yes, a PM can cross the floor, like I told you, it's happened before.

Not if he is removed by his party he is not. Elections, even snap elections, cannot be called overnight. So what if he sets the timetable? If he had done any of this he would have been removed and replaced long before the wash up period ends. It is then case of new PM passing legislation to stop the dissolution of parliament and cancel the election, given the Con's majority and how tainted any election called in these circumstances would be I cannot see how such legislation would fail to pass - I imagine that Lab and others would abstain but not oppose.

I agree that it would be a constitutional crisis. However I do not think it would be insurmountable and I believe that there are enough checks and balances in the system to prevent an ousted PM who has lost the confidence of his party calling a GE as an act of petty vengeance.

I know the PM can cross the floor - I've not stated otherwise - but they cannot do so and retain being PM without enough MPs going with them in order for them to maintain the confidence of the house.

For example if the Tories have an 80 seat majority - I have no idea where their majority stands at the moment after the recent shenanigans - and Johnson crossed the house to Lab cutting their majority to 78 he would not be able to continue as PM because he would be unable to command the confidence of the house which would remain with the Cons due to their majority. However if enough Tory MPs went with him making Lab the majority party he would still be PM (assuming Lab allowed him to continue as PM).

- - - Updated - - -

Begun the Tory wars have.

https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/st...00038581395460

[Snuke]

Not if he is removed by his party he is not. Elections, even snap elections, cannot be called overnight. So what if he sets the timetable? If he had done any of this he would have been removed and replaced long before the wash up period ends. It is then case of new PM passing legislation to stop the dissolution of parliament and cancel the election, given the Con's majority and how tainted any election called in these circumstances would be I cannot see how such legislation would fail to pass - I imagine that Lab and others would abstain but not oppose.

I agree that it would be a constitutional crisis. However I do not think it would be insurmountable and I believe that there are enough checks and balances in the system to prevent an ousted PM who has lost the confidence of his party calling a GE as an act of petty vengeance.

I know the PM can cross the floor - I've not stated otherwise - but they cannot do so and retain being PM without enough MPs going with them in order for them to maintain the confidence of the house.

For example if the Tories have an 80 seat majority - I have no idea where their majority stands at the moment after the recent shenanigans - and Johnson crossed the house to Lab cutting their majority to 78 he would not be able to continue as PM because he would be unable to command the confidence of the house which would remain with the Cons due to their majority. However if enough Tory MPs went with him making Lab the majority party he would still be PM (assuming Lab allowed him to continue as PM).

Here’s the thing, he hasn’t been removed by his party.

[Pann]

Here’s the thing, he hasn’t been removed by his party.

You do realise that the situation we were talking about was entirely hypothetical?